SMA Question

[Jim Frame]

July 3, 1910: Berry Vale Gardens (2 M 38) subdivides 2-/12 sections of land into 10- and 20-acre lots. Lot 20 is about 660'x1320'; Lots 21 & 22 are about 660'x660' and adjoin Lot 20 on the south. Taken together, they form a nominal square 1320' on a side (I'm rounding for simplicity).

June 12, 1974: Parcel Map No. 2322 (Corcoran Estates, 2 PM 50) comprises parts of Berry Vale Gardens and shows a total of 21 parcels. Parcel 11 comprises Berry Vale Gardens Lots 20, 21 and 22, and is shown as about 1320'x1320' (rounding again).

Present day: The vesting deed (2014) describes the land as "Parcel 11 of Parcel Map 2322...also known as Lots 20, 21 and 22 Berryvale [sic] Gardens Subdivision...Book 2 of Maps, Page 38..." The Assessor shows 2 distinct parcel numbers, one corresponding to Lot 20, the other corresponding to the combined Lots 21 and 22. My client wants to convey 2 parcels separately, corresponding to the Assessor's map configuration. County staff is okay with that according to my client.

Question: Can I legally monument the Berry Vale Gardens lots without filing a Parcel Map or Certificate of Compliance? (I will have to file a Record of Survey, as there are some material discrepancies.)

Thanks!

[David Kendall]

Question: Can I legally monument the Berry Vale Gardens lots without filing a Parcel Map or Certificate of Compliance? (I will have to file a Record of Survey, as there are some material discrepancies.)

I strongly suggest that a COC is called for in this instance. If County staff approves of the two parcels then get it in writing and show it on the RS for posterity. I believe that you can monument whatever you want regarding old or new parcels so long as you provide sufficient explanation. Monuments do not create parcels. The legitimacy of the underlying lots may someday be called into question and I reckon that could be resolved by Certificate of Compliance or resubdivision.

The situation sounds dicey to me as someone could interpret Parcel 11 to be a merger of the underlying lots

[Ian Wilson]

SMA §66499.20.2 reads "The filing of the final map or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate parcels into one parcel and the resubdivision of such parcel, and the real property shall thereafter be shown with the new lot or parcel boundaries on the assessment roll."

The old parcels per the 1910 map are no longer lawful parcels. They can still be used as a legal description, but not for purposes of determination of current parcel lines.

[David Kendall]

The old parcels per the 1910 map are no longer lawful parcels. They can still be used as a legal description, but not for purposes of determination of current parcel lines.

Nothing in the law is stopping him from setting corner monuments on the old lots though, correct?

[CBarrett]

Underlying subdivision layout no longer exists as a legal parcel. Recording of a subdivision map imparts a constructive notice that the land is now divided differently. Anything not shown on the new subdivision map (within the blue border) no longer exists (unless it falls under errors and omissions).
Assessors parcel map has no bearing on title or whether something is a legal subdivision, and something which existed that long an has started with a wonky legal description could have easily been misunderstood by a tax clerk 40 years ago.

As far as monumenting the old lines, I would be weary of someone possibly misconstruing those as monuments representing title. While it may not be against the PLS act, this doesn't protect you from having to defend yourself in a property di$$$$pute.

Whomever sells this property without a certificate of compliance will need to have this situation disclosed in the transaction (ie. that it is not certain whether the property is suitable for building or conventional financing without additional paperwork. What would concern me is that a "lay person" may construe a surveyor monumenting extents of the land as a confirmation of it's legal standing.

I would look into the dynamics of a lot merger. (I have not done one in at least a decade, so I forgot details) One interesting thing in the SMA language when it comes to let mergers is that they explicitly say that single ownership of contiguous parcels does not constitute a merger.... For this language to make it into the law, it must have been a frequent problem.

If county staff has already looked at things an have no problem, they can then issue the certificate of compliance and solve the problem, get the potential liability off your back :P